Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

GLAT: The Generative AI Literacy Assessment Test

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.00283 v2 pith:UTETKVHA submitted 2024-11-01 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords genailiteracyglatlearnerstestassessmentcriticallyeducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology into education necessitates precise measurement of GenAI literacy to ensure that learners and educators possess the skills to engage with and critically evaluate this transformative technology effectively. Existing instruments often rely on self-reports, which may be biased. In this study, we present the GenAI Literacy Assessment Test (GLAT), a 20-item multiple-choice instrument developed following established procedures in psychological and educational measurement. Structural validity and reliability were confirmed with responses from 355 higher education students using classical test theory and item response theory, resulting in a reliable 2-parameter logistic (2PL) model (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80; omega total = 0.81) with a robust factor structure (RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.97). Critically, GLAT scores were found to be significant predictors of learners' performance in GenAI-supported tasks, outperforming self-reported measures such as perceived ChatGPT proficiency and demonstrating external validity. These results suggest that GLAT offers a reliable and valid method for assessing GenAI literacy, with the potential to inform educational practices and policy decisions that aim to enhance learners' and educators' GenAI literacy, ultimately equipping them to navigate an AI-enhanced future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Agency Gap in AI-Supported Writing: How Reactive and Proactive Agent Designs Shape Multimodal Reasoning

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Generative AI literacy predicts independent writing performance only when students must take the initiative with a reactive AI assistant, not when a proactive assistant scaffolds the task.

Pith tools